tihravy  of t:he  trheological  ^mimxy 

PRINCETON  •  NEW  JERSEY 


PRESENTED  BY 

The  Estate  of 
Samuel  Henry  Gapp 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arcliive 

in  2014 

littps  ://arcli  ive  .org/detai  Is/in  istoryofu  n  itasfOOdesc 


A.  HISTORY 


THE  UNITAS  FRATRUM, 

r  ROM  1627  TO  1722. 


By  EDMUND  DE  SCHWEINITZ,  S.  T.  D., 

Bishop  of  the  Church. 


A  HISTORY 


OF 


THE  UNITAS  FRATRUM 


FROM  ITS 


Overthrow  in  Bohemia  and  Moravia 


RENEWAL  AT  HERRNHUT, 


BASED  UPON  SOURCES  NOT  HERETOFORE  DRAWN  FROM,  AND  SHOWING  THAT 
THE  TIME  OF  THE  HIDDEN  SEED  MUST  BE  REDUCED  TO  LESS 
THAN  A  QUARTER  OF  A  CENTURY. 


By  Edmund  de  Schweinitz,  S.  T.  D. 

Bishop  of  the  Church. 


BETHLEHEM: 
MORAVIAN  PUBLICATION  OFFICE. 
1877. 


TO  ITS 


1627  to  1722, 


THE  UNITAS  FRATRUM, 

FROM  1627  TO  1722. 


The  history  of  the  Unitas  Fratrum  from 
the  end  of  the  Bohemian  Anti-reformation, 
in  1627,  which  was  the  occasion  of  its  over- 
throw in  its  original  seats,  to  its  resuscita- 
tion at  Herrnhut,  in  Saxony,  in  1722,  is 
involved  in  much  obscurity.  Some  of  our 
authorized  works,  as  for  instance.  Cram's 
History  of  the  Brethren,  and  Holmes  His- 
tor//  of  the  Protestant  Church  of  the  United 
Brethren,  say  very  little  about  this  era. 
The  most  complete  account  of  it  is  found 
in  John  Plitt's  MS.  History  of  the  Unitas 
Fratrum,  and  has  been  substantially  repro- 
duced in  the  Geschichte  der  Alten  Bruder- 
kirche,  by  Bishop  Croeger,  2  vols.,  Gnadau, 
1865  and  1866. 

Plitt  sets  forth  the  following  periods  of 
our  church-history : 

The  history  of  the  Ancient  Church  from 
1457  to  1627 ;  the  history  of  the  Hidden 
Seed,  from  1627  to  1722;  the  history  of 
the  Renewed  Church,  from  1722  to  the 
present  time.  These  divisions  have  been 
adopted  by  all  our  writers  since  his  day, 
and  by  all  those  Professors  who  lecture 
on  Brethren's  History  in  our  Theological  | 
Seminaries.  In  preparing  my  own  lectures 
for  the  Seminary  at  Bethlehem,  I  have 
been  led,  as  touching  the  second  period, 
namely,  that  of  the  Hidden  Seed,  to  con- 
clusions which  differ  entirely  from  those  of 
Plitt,  and  other  German  writers,  but  espe- 
cially from  those  which  are  found  in  Bishop 


Croeger 's  Geschichte  der  Alten  Bruderkirehe. 
Having  communicated  the  results  of  my 
investigations  in  a  paper  read,  some  time 
ago,  before  a  ministerial  circle  at  Bethle- 
hem, I  was  asked  to  publish  them.  Ac- 
cordingly I  herewith  present  that  paper  in  a 
modified  form. 

In  doing  this  I  beg  the  indulgence  of  my 
brethren  in  Germany  who  have  written  or 
lectured  on  the  same  subject,  and  hope 
that  they  will  look  upon  my  criticisms 
merely  as  an  effort  to  reach  the  truth,  and 
as  a  humble  contribution  toward  a  future 
history  of  that  period  of  the  Ancient  Church 
of  which  I  am  treating.  I  may  say  this 
with  all  confidence,  because  such  criticisms 
will  recoil,  first  of  all,  upon  myself,  in  as 
much  as  I  taught,  in  my  earlier  lectures, 
the  very  same  points  which  I  now  refute, 
and  published  them  in  the  Moravian  Man- 
xial,  as  also  in  other  works. 

There  are,  I  suppose,  few  intelligent 
readers  of  our  history  who  do  not  lament 
the  length  of  time  which  is  said  to  have 
elapsed  between  the  destruction  of  the  An- 
cient and  the  founding  of  the  Renewed 
Church.  For  five  years  less  than  a  cen- 
tury the  Unitas  Fratrum,  it  is  asserted,  ex- 
isted only  as  Hidden  Seed.  If  there  really 
was  such  a  gulf  between  the  Ancient  and 
the  Renewed  Church,  and  if  it  was  bridged 
over  only  by  the  episcopacy,  is  the  claim  of 
the  latter  to  be  organically  connected  with 


4  THE  V  NIT  AS  FRATBUM. 

tho  former  as  strong  as  we  would  wish  it  to  I  same  author,  Edinburgh,  1851;  5th,  an 
be?    And  when  answering  the  inquiries  ot  j  ^rh'c/e  on  Amos   Comenius,  by  Palacky, 


othei-s,  do  we  not  sometimes  find  it  hard  to 
explain,  in  a  satisfactory  manner,  how  a 
church  could  exist  as  a  Hiddeu  Seed,  with- 


published  in  1829,  in  the  " Monatschrift  der 
Gesellschaft  des  Voter Idiidischen  Museums, 
in  Bohmen;"  6th,  an  Article  by  Gindley, 


out  any  visible  organization  whatsoever,  for  on  Ainos  Comenius  published  in  1855,  in 
so  long  a  time,  and  then  suddenly  reap- 1  the  Sitzungsbericht  der  Kaiserlichen  Akade- 
pear,  with  a  visible  organization,  and  take  ?>i/e  der  Wissenschaften,  Vienna;  7th,  The 


its  former  place  in  Christeiulon 


Life  of  Comenius  by  Daniel  Benham,  Lon- 


It  will,  therefore,  be  the  object  of  this  don,  1858.    To  these  must  l)e  added  two 


article  to  try  to  show  : 

First,  that  the  Ai 
Church,  when  it  had  been  ii\ ( nluown  in 
Bohemia  and  ]\Ioravia,  in  1()_'7,  did  not 
(■(inie  to  an  end,  but  continued  to  e.xist  in 
otiier  countries,  as  a  fully  organized  Uni- 
tas  Fratrum,  for  twenty  nine  years  longer. 

Second,  that  even  after  its  new  centre  of 
government  had  Ixeii  destroyed,  in  1656, 
and  if  had  received  tl 
it  never  recovered,  it  i 
a  visible  and  in(le|ieiident  cliurch  ttt  tlie 
very  end  of  tlie  seventeenth  cent 
disappeared  very  gradually. 


older  and  well  known  sources,  namely, 
lirethren's  Reg envolscii  Sy sterna  historico-chronologicum 
iluown  in  Ecclesianiin  Slavonicarum,  Ultrajccti,  1Q52, 
and  the  sixtli  volume  of  Rieger's  Bohmische 
Bruderhistorie. 

THK   HISTOKY   OF   THE  UXITAS  FRATRUM 
FROM  1627  TO  1656. 

In  the  year  1627,  the  Bohemian  Anti- 
lildw  from  which  reformation,  inaugurated  by  Ferdinand  II, 
I  flieless  remained  came  practically  to  an  end,  resulting  in 
the  complete  overthrow  of  Protestantism 
ihI  in  Bohemia  and  Moravia,  the  emigration 
of  many  thousands  of  Protestants,  of  whom 
Third,  that  the  period  of  the  real  Hidden  a  huge  part  were  Brethren,  and  the  over- 
Seed,  that  is,  the  time  in  which,  as  far  as  throw  of  the  Unitas  Fratrum  in  its  original 
we  know,  there  existed  no  churches  at  all  of  seats.    In  the  same  year,  according  to  our 


the  Brethren,  instead  of  extending  throi 
ninety-five  years,  must  be  reduced  to 
than  twenty-five. 

In  discussing  these  points  1  will  refei 


rli  (rerman  writers,  its  Polish  Province  united 
ss  with  the  Reformed  Church  of  Poland,  and 
disappeared  as  a  distinct  and  independent 
to  organization.    This  year,  consequently,  is 


some  authorities  which  have  but  recently  «et  forth  as  the  last  of  its  history  proper, 
come  to  my  knowledge,  and  which,  together  i  and  here,  it  is  said,  the  history  of  its  Hidden 
with  others  that  I  have  hatl  for  some  years, '  Seed  begins. 


have  helped  chiefly  to  shape  my  views. 
These  authorities  are:  1st,  Lukasczevich's 


The  Geschicltte  der  Alten  Bruderkirche, 
p.  :)4(),  following  Plitt,  says :    "  At  the 


Geschichte  der  Kircke  der  Bohmischen  close  of  this  same  year  (1627),  in  which 
Sriirfer  i«.  Crimspoto),  Posen,  1835,  a  work  the  Brethren's  Church  of  Bohemia  and 


which  I  have  in  vain  tried  to  secure, 
but  copious  extracts  from  which  1  have 
found  in  :  2nd,  Fixcher's  Versuch  einer  Ge- 
schichte den  Reformation  in  Polen,  2  vols., 
Gratz,  1855;  Wrd,  Histonrn]  Skefrh  of  the 
Rise,  Progrexs  and  Decl'nK  oi'  llic.  It<  faruKi- 
tion  in  /'oland,by  dount  Kraslnski..  2  vols., 


Moravia  received  its  last  blow  through  the 
edict  of  July  81st,  the  Brethren  in  Great 
Poland  themselves  put  an  end  to  the  former 
independence  of  their  church,  and  amalga- 
mated with  the  Reformed  ('hurch  of  that 
eouiitry.'"  Again,  p.  047,  "Thus  the  fields 
of  tlie  Brethren '.s  Unitv  which  had  flowered 


Ix)ndon,  1840  ;  4th,  iSketeh  of  the  Religious  |  so  pleasantly  and  hopefully  in  Bohemia  and 
History  of  the  Sclavonic  Nations,  by  the  j  Moravia  were  trodden  down  and  laid  waste ; 


AND  ITS  HIDDEN  SEED. 


jii  while  in  Poland  nothing  whatever  could 
be  recognized  of  that  tillage  upon  which  so 
fj,  much  care  had  been  bestowed."  Again, 
p.  349:  "A  time  of  humble  waiting,  pro- 
j  1  longed  for  one  hundred  years,  was  to  come 
^  before  the  Lord  would  redeem  His  captive 
5.  people."  And  in  another  place,  p.  3ol  : 
"The  historv  of  the  Brethren's  Church,  as 
an  ecclesiastical  union  which  seceded  from 
the  Romish  Establishment  and  entered  into 
a  close  fellowship  with  the  Evangelical 
Church,  has,  properly  speaking,  reached  its 
end  with  the  year  1627.  For  it  was  de- 
stroyed in  Bohemia  and  Moravia,  and,  in 
Poland,  it  disappeared  among  the  other 
evangelical  churches.  Single  remnants 
only  remained,  ruins  of  the  city  of  Goil, 
amidst  which  we  hear  a  venerable  bishop 
bewailing  the  fall  of  his  people,  and,  at  the 
same  time,  invoking,  like  Jeremiah,  the 
God  of  his  fathers  for  a  new  season  of  grace 
and  glory,  when  the  time  of  well-deserved 
chastisement  .should  be  over."  In  the  same 
strain,  although  very  briefly,  Burkhardt, 
in  his  Zinzeiidorf  und  die  Brudergemeine, 
says,  p.  3:  "In  the  year  162"  the  Breth- 
ren's Unity  no  longer  existed.  For  in 
Poland,  too,  where  it  had  spread  since 
1548,  it  had  succumbed,  about  the  same 
time,  i.  e.,  1627,  to  the  intrigues  of  the 
Jesuits." 

According  to  these  authorities,  therefore, 
first,  the  Polish  branch  of  the  Unitas  Fra- 
trum  was  absorbed  by  the  Reformed  Church, 
in  1627,  or,  as  one  of  then\  says,  destroyed 
by  the  Jesuits  ;  second,  its  exiled  members 
from  Bohemia  and  Moravia  did  not  re- 
organize ;  hence,  third,  there  existed  no 
Brethren's  Church  after  that  date.  These 
positions  a  subsequent  statement  of  the  Ge- 
schichte  der  Alien  Br'uderkirche,  p.  SoU. 
merely  modifies,  and  does  not  controvert. 
That  authority  says,  that  a  church  of  ex- 
iles was  formed  at  Lissa,  and  that  it  seemed 
as  if  the  Brethren's  Unity  were  again  to 
revive  at  that  place  and  to  embrace  repre- 
sentatives of  the  three  nations  from  which 


I  its  membership  was  originally  made  up, 
namely,  the  Bohemian,  German  and  Polish, 

'  adding  that  the  Brethren  found  a  second 
asylum  at  AVlodawa,  in  Lithuania.  Indeed 

[  this  brief  reference  to  Lis.*a  is  hardly  to  be 
understood  even  as  a  modification  of  what 
has  been  previously  said.  The  whole  spirit 
of  the  narrative  shows,  again  and  again, 
that  the  Church  is  deemed  to  be  extinct. 
Let  us  examine  these  position?;  criticallv. 
In  order  to  a  proper  comprehension  of 
what  follows,  it  may  be  well  to  remember 
that  Poland,  at  the  time  of  which  I  am 
treating,  was  divided  into  the  following 
three  provinces  :  namely,  Great  Poland,  to 
which  belonged  Cujavia,  ]\Iasovia,  and 
Polish  Prussia  ;  Little  Poland  ;  and  Lithua- 
nia, including  Samogitia,  Szamaiten,  and 
Courland. 

Now  an  investigation  of  the  sources 
shows,  in  the  first  place,  that,  in  1627,  the 
Polish  branch  of  the  L^nitas  Fratrum  was 
not  absorbed  by  ti  ])art  of  the  Reformed 
Church  of  Great  Poland,  but,  just  the  con- 
trary, that  a  part  of  the  Reformed  Church 
of  Great  Poland,  namely  that  of  Cujavia, 
was  absorbed  by  the  Polish  branch  of  the 
Unitas  Fratrum.  For  Regenvolscius,  p. 
120,  speaking  of  a  union-synod  held  at 
Ostrorog  by  the  Brethren  and  the  Re- 
formed of  Cujavia,  in  December  of  1627, 
says:  "For  then  the  Helvetians  (?.  e.  Re- 
formed), their  Senior,  Daniel  Micolajovius, 
their  Consenior,  Jacob  Gembiciuvs,  and 
others,  united,  or  coalesced  (coaluerunt), 
with  the  Bohemian  Brethren  in  one  order 
and  discipline,  and  this  in  such  a  way,  that, 
from  that  time,  they  held  the  same  assem- 
blies and  the  same  synods,  governed  by 
common  councils,  and  were  called  by  a 
common  name  the  Brethren  of  the  Unity." 
Now  if  the  Brethren  had  disappeared 
among  the  Reformed,  would  not  Regen- 
volscius have  said  :  "  The  Bohemian  Breth- 
ren coalesced  with  the  Helvetians  in  one 
order  and  discipline,"  and  not,  "  the  Hel- 
vetians coalesced  with  the  Bohemian  Bretii- 


6 


THE  UNITAS  FRATRUM, 


reu?"  ^In  unum  ordineni  et  disciplinam 
coaluerunt  cum  Fratribus  Bohemicis  Hel- 
vetici.) 

In  order,  however,  that  there  may  be  no 
doubt  on  this  point,  Fischer,  going  more 
into  details  of  the  case,  presents  the  follow- 
ing narrative,  Geschichte  d.  Ref.,  in  Polen, 
II,  p.  157 :  "  The  most  important  of  the 
many  synods  held  by  the  Bohemian  Breth- 
ren was  undoubtedly  the  one  which  con- 
vened at  Ostrorog,  in  December  of  1 627  ; 
for  on  that  occasion  the  Calvinists  of  Great 
Poland  actually  went  over  to,  or,  rather, 
were  really  amalgamated  with,  the  Bohe- 
mian Brethren.  We  have,  in  preceding 
pages,  set  forth  that  the  most  of  the  evan- 
gelical churches  of  Cujavia  succumbed  to 
the  Romish  bishops  Karnkowski  and  Roz- 
razeweski,  and  that,  at  last,  the  important 
centre  at  Radziejow  was  destroyed,  on  the 
26th  of  March,  1615,  by  order  of  Bishop 
Wolucki.  Thereupon  Daniel  Mikolajewski, 
the  Reformed  Senior,  and  -Jacob  Genibicki, 
the  Consenior,  felt  themselves  constrained, 
for  the  sake  of  the  greater  safety  and  strength 
which  it  would  give  them,  to  carry  out  that 
plan  of  amalgamation  for  which  the  way 
had  been  prepared  at  an  earlier  lime,  esj)e- 
cially  at  the  Synod  of  the  Boliuiuian  iJreth- 
ren  held  on  the  8th  of  September,  1620,  at 
Ostrorog.  Accordingly,  they  went  over, 
with  their  remaining  seven  parishes  and 
church  edifices,  as  Weugierski  says,  in  uni- 
tatem  fratrum  conj'essionis  Bohemicae.  Mi- 
kolajewski entered  the  ranks  of  the  Bohe- 
mian Brethren  as  a  Superintendent,  and 
the  membership  of  their  churches  was,  through 
the  addition  of  these  Reformed,  increased  by 
several  hundred  souls." 

This  history  of  the  transaction  at  Ostro- 
rog, in  1627,  sets  forth  its  true  character. 
A  remnant  of  Reformed  churches  in  Cuja- 
via was  absorbed  by  the  Polish  branch  of  the 
Unitas  Fratrum.  Moreover,  as  if  to  make 
assurance  doubly  sure,  we  are  told  by  Re- 
geuvolscius,  p.  322,  that,  before  the  Synod 
adjourned,  Mikolajewski  was  consecrated  a 


bishop  of  the  Unitas  Fratrum.  The  offi- 
ciating bishops  were  John  Turnovius,  Mar- 
tin Gratian  Gertich,  and,  in  all  probability, 
John  Cyrill,  the  presiding  bishop.  If  the 
Polish  branch  of  the  Unitas  Fratrum  had 
been  absorbed,  or.  this  occasion,  by  the 
Reformed,  is  it  likely  that  the  Reformed 
Superintendent  would  have  been  constituted 
a  Bishop  of  the  extinct  church  ?  Is  it  not 
far  more  probable  that  the  Bishops  of  the 
Polish  Brethren  would  thereafter  have  been 
known  merely  as  Reformed  Superinten- 
dents ? 

Nor  was  the  consecration  of  Mikolajew- 
ski a  solitary  instance.  The  continued  in- 
dependence of  the  Polish  branch  of  the 
Unitas  Fratrum  is,  furthermore,  conclu- 
sively shown  by  the  fact,  that  within  its 
communion  other  Bishops  were,  from  time 
to  time,  elected  and  consecrated,  not,  as  the 
Geschichte  der  Alien  Bruder  Kirche,  p.  421, 
intimates,  in  the  persons  of  Reformed  Super- 
intendents, but  as  Bishops  of  the  Unitas 
Fratrum,  with  all  the  functions  and  privi- 
leges of  this  office.  The  above  authority 
says  very  little  of  these  bishops ;  nor  are 
their  biographies  found  in  any  other  Mora- 
vian work.  Hence,  before  proceeding  with 
the  argument,  I  will  give  a  brief  account 
of  them. 

The  first  was  Paul  Paliurus,  born  in 
Moravia,  and  educated  in  the  most  cele- 
brated schools  and  universities  of  Germany 
and  Switzerland.  At  the  age  of  twenty- 
two  years  he  was  appointed  rector  of  the 
school  at  Lobsenz,  in  Poland,  and  subse- 
quently, labored  for  twenty  years  as  pastor 
of  the  Brethren's  Church  at  Grebocin,  near 
Thorn.  He  was  elected  and  consecrated  a 
bishop  on  the  6th  of  July,  1629,  at  the 
Synod  of  Lissa,  by  Bishop  John  C/yrill,  Gre- 
gory Erastus,  and  others,  and  took  up  his 
residence  at  Ostrorog,  where  he  died  No- 
vember 27th,  1632.  The  only  thing  which 
the  Geschichte  der  Alten  Briiderkirche  says 
of  him  is,  that  he  translated  the  Bible  into 
Polish.    But  this  is  a  mistake.    The  ver- 


AND  ITS  HIDDEN  SEED. 


sion  to  which  the  Geschirhte  refers  wati  a  | 
mere  revision  of"  an  old  translation,  under-  \ 
taken  by  Mikolajewski  and  John  Turno-  j 
vius,  and  not  by  Paliurus.  ( Fischer  II.  p, 
184.)  "  ' 

The  second  bishop  was  Martin  Orniinius 
born  at  Wiernszewo.  He  served  a  number 
of  Brethren's  churches  in  Great  Poland,  \ 
Cujavia,  and  Lithuania,  until  his  elevation 
to  the  episcopacy,  April  17,  1633,  at  the 
Synod  of  Ostrorog.  He  died  December  31, 
1643. 

The  third  was  John  Rybinski,  a  son  of 
Bishop  Matthias  Rybinski,  educated  at ' 
Lissa  and  Thorn,  and  at  several  German  i 
universities.  After  graduating,  he  traveled  j 
extensively,  as  far  as  France  and  England, 
returning  to  Poland  in  1 623.  He  was  or- 
dained to  the  ministry  at  the  Synod  of  Os- 
trorog in  1625,  appointed  rector  and  Polish 
preacher  at  Lissa,  and  subsequently  called 
to  Kwilcz  and  Grebociu.  Elected  and  con- 
secrated to  the  episcopacy  at  the  same  time 
with  Orminius,  he  took  up  his  abode  at 
Ostrorog.  AYhen  this  important  seat  suc- 
cumbed to  the  intrigues  of  the  Jesuits,  and 
fell  into  their  hands,  in  1637,  he  went  to  [ 
Obrzycko,  where  he  died  September  13, 
1368.  i 

The  fourth  was  Martin  Gertich,  a  nephew 
of  Bishop  ^lartin  Gratian  Gertich,  born  j 
1591,  at  Lasswitz,  and  educated  at  Beuthen, 
in  Silesia,  and  at  Thorn.    In  1640  he  was  j 
elected  an  assistant  bishop,  and  on  the  16th 
of  April,  1644,  bishop,  at  the  Synod  of  i 
Lissa.    There  he  took  up  his  abode  until 
the  destruction  of  the  town,  when  he  fled 
to  Silesia,  and  died  at  Ursk,  December  10, 
1658.  i 

The  fifth  was  John  Buettuer,  elected  and 
consecrated  at  the  same  time  with  Gertich. 
He  was  born  in  1602,  educated  at  ThoriT^ 
and  had  charge  of  various  parishes  of  the 
Brethren  prior  to  this  elevation  to  the  epis- 
copacy. After  that  he  took  up  his  resi- 
dence at  Lissa.  We  will  hear  more  of  him 
in  another  connection. 


All  these  men,  as  we  have  said,  were,  in 
every  sense,  bishops  of  the  Polish  branch  of 
the  Unitas  Fratrum,  and  not  Reformed 
ministers. 

From  what  has  thus  far  been  set  ibrth,  I 
think,  therefore,  that  the  continued  inde- 
pendence of  this  branch  must  be  conceded, 
and  the  idea  that  it  was  absorbed,  in  1627, 
by  the  Reformed  Church,  given  up. 

Turning  in  the  next  place  to  those  Breth- 
ren who  were  exiled  from  Bohemia  and 
Moravia,  a  further  investigation  of  the 
sources  shows,  that,  instead  of  losing  them- 
selves among  other  churches,  they  reorgan- 
izrd  and  fully  re-estabHshed  their  branch  of 
the  Unitas  Fratrum.  The  almost  total 
silence  of  our  authorized  writers  on  this 
important  point  is  hard  to  understand. 

When  driven  out  of  Bohemia  and  Mora- 
via the  Brethren  emigrated  chiefly  to 
Poland,  Hungary,  and  Prussia.  In  these 
countries  they  organized  about  one  hun- 
dred churches,  exclusive  of  tho.se  which  the 
Polish  branch  had  previously  had.  There 
were,  moreover,  several  old  parishes  in 
Silesia.  More  than  one  hundred  ministers 
of  the  Bohemian-Moravian  branch  settled 
in  Poland  alone.  All  its  bishoi)s  found  a 
refuge  there.  They  reorganized  the  Ex- 
ecutive Council,  a  body  corresponding  in 
character  to  the  Unity's  Elders'  Conference 
of  the  Renewed  Church.  Synods,  both  Gen- 
eral and  Provincial,  were  regularly  held, 
and  the  transactions  of  many  of  them,  be- 
ginning with  the  year  1632,  are  still  extant, 
and  have  been  gathered  by  Gindely  in  the 
Deh-eten  der  Bruderunitat,  published  in 
the  Monumenta  Historiae  Bohemica,  Prague 
1864  to  1870.  The  town  of  Lissa,  at  that 
time  in  Great  Poland  but  now  in  Prussia, 
was  constituted  the  new  centre  of  the 
Church.  There  the  Bishops  and  the  Coun- 
cil had  their  seat.  There  an  elementary 
school,  which  the  Brethren  had  founded  in 
earlier  times,  was  raised  to  the  rank  of  a 
Gymnasium,  or  College,  and  a  full  account 
of  its  work  has  come  down  to  us.    There  a 


8 


THE  UNITAS  FRATRUM. 


Theological  Seminary  Was  added  to  it,  in 
1637,  when  the  Brethren  had  lost  their 
seat  at  Ostrorog,  at  which  place  it  had  for- 
merly been  located.  And  there,  finally,  a 
publication-office  was  opened. 

These  enterprises  were  rendered  possible 
through  the  munificence  of  Count  Raphael 
Lecinski,  the  lord  of  Lissa,  and  a  member 
of  the  Brethren's  Church,  with  which  his 
fathers  had  been  connected  before  him.  He 
gave  the  College  a  charter  and  endowment^ 
and  helped  to  organize  a  Bohemian  church 
for  the  Brethren,  besides  which  there  were, 
in  the  same  town,  two  others  in  fellowship 
with  them,  the  one  Polish,  the  other  Ger- 
man. 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  Lissa  could 
take  its  place  by  the  side  of  Jungbunzlau, 
or  of  any  other  former  centre  of  the  Unitas 
Fratrum  in  Bohemia  and  Moravia. 

Comenius,  in  his  Manuahdk,  published 
in  Amsterdam,  in  ]  658,  says  of  tliis  town : 
"Our  chief  place  of  refuge  wa:^  Lissa,  a 
city  pointed  out  to  us  by  the  tiii^u(  j'  ct'  ( ind 
himself.  It  constituted  a  Si'gur,  whither 
all  godly  Lots  took  their  way,  a  Pella, 
whither  the  Lord  brought  us  out  of  Jeru- 
salem, when  His  judgments  burst  upon  this 
city.  At  Lissa  we  enjoyed  a  public  and 
peaceful  worshi]),  rejoicing  like  Jonaii  be- 
neath his  gourd,  when  it  sheltered  liini  from 
the  great  heat  of  the  sun,  and  like  Paul, 
when  he  was  saved  from  shipwreck  and 
hospitably  entertained  by  the  inhabitants 
of  ]\Ialta.  We  opened  our  worship  at 
Lissa,  with  souls  famishing  for  the  want  of 
God's  Word  and  with  voices  that  rang  out 
for  joy.  Many  gentry  and  common  people 
and  nearly  fifty  of  our  ministers,  were 
present." 

Another  principal  scat  in  Poland  was 
Schockeu,  a  domain  belonging  to  Count 
Andrew  Rej,  who  was  a  member  of  the 
Churcli.  On  many  other  estates,  especially 
where  the  Polish  branch  had  its  parishes, 
settlements  were  begun.  In  some  cases 
new  church-edifices  were  built,  tor  instance. 


at  Orzeszkowo  and  Sieroslaw.  Besides 
these  two,  and  those  at  Lissa,  Schocken, 
and  Ostrorog,  we  know  of  parishes  at  Wlo- 
dawa,  Kobuitz,  Kwilcy,  Debnica,  Cienin, 
Marszewo,  Swierczynek,  Karmin,  Lasswitz, 
Mielecin,  Kosminek,  Lobsenz,  Grebocin, 
Choraentowo,  and  Wolalaszkowska.  These 
churches,  however,  many  of  which  had  ex- 
isted before  the  immigration  from  Bohemia 
and  Moravia,  constituted  only  a  small  part 
of  the  Unitas  Fratrum  in  Poland.  There 
were  many  other  parishes,  whose  names 
have  not  been  preserved. 

In  Hungary  the  chief  seat  of  the  Churchy 
was  at  Skalic,  on  the  March,  where  John 
Efronius  and  Paul  Vetterinus  were  sta- 
tioned as  pastors.  Other  parishes  were 
found  at  Lednic,  in  charge  of  John  Soli- 
nus;  at  Pucho,  in  charge  of  Laurinus ;  and 
at  Saros-Patak,  the  residence  of  the  Prince, 
where  Bishop  Comenius  lived  for  a  time. 
Many  more  existed  in  this  country,  whose 
names  we  do  not  know. 

In  Silesia  we  hear  of  Karolath,  Kuttlau, 
Militsch,  and  Freistadt.  I  have  not  been 
able  to  find  the  names  of  any  of  the  par- 
ishes in  Prussia. 

Including  the  original  Polish  churches, 
the  Unitas  Fratrum,  after  its  destruction 
in  Bohemia  and  Moravia,  must  have  com- 
prised at  least  one  hundred  and  fifty  to 
sixty  parishes  and  as  many  ministers.  It 
consisted,  moreover,  of  two  parts,  the  one 
the  old  Polish  Province,  which  was  now 
increased  by  the  amalgamation  with  it  of 
the  Reformed  of  Great  Poland,  and  the 
other  the  new  province  of  the  exiled  Breth- 
ren from  Bohemia  and  Moravia,  with  its 
churches  scattered  through  Poland,  Hun- 
gary, Silesia,  and  Prussia. 

This  second  Province  kept  up  the  epis- 
copacy as  well  as  the  first.  Laurentius 
Justiuus,  Matthias  Procop,  Amos  Comenius, 
and  Paul  Fabricius  were  all  elected  and 
consecrated  at  a  Synod  convened  at  Lissa, 
on  the  Gth  of  October,  1632.  In  short,  the 
work  of  the  Unitas  Fratrum  was  carried  on' 


\  7 


AND  ITS  HIDDEN  SEED. 


until  1656,  as  vigorously  and  in  the  same 
way,  as  in  former  times.  Many  of  the 
exiles,  however,  were  greatly  impoverished, 
and  depended  for  help,  in  part,  upon  their 
Polish  brethren,  and,  in  part,  upon  their 
friends  in  other  countries.  It  was,  there- 
fore, a  God-send  that  two  wealthy  members 
left  legacies  to  the  Church,  in  this  period 
of  its  history.  In  1630,  the  Baroness  Sa- 
dowsky  willed  to  it  over  $7,000 ;  and,  in 
1638,  Baron  Kocourovsky  his  entire  estate 
(Gindely,  p.  532).  Whether  the  Unitas 
Fratrum,  in  its  new  form,  increased,  as  it 
did  in  its  old  seats,  I  cannot  tell.  I  think 
it  did  not,  more  especially  as  it  suffered  in 
Poland,  along  with  other  Protestants,  not  a 
little,  during  this  whole  period,  through  the 
enmity  of  the  Roman  Catholics,  and  par- 
ticularly of  the  Jesuits,  who  took  away  a 
number  of  its  church  edifices.  On  the 
other  hand,  I  presume  that  it  held  its  own. 
But  even  if  it  did  not,  its  decrease  was  not 
rapid.  Such  a  decrease  began  in  a  later 
period.  The  standing  which  it  had,  and 
the  influence  which  it  exercised,  are  shown 
by  the  prominent  part  it  took  in  the  so 
called  Colloquium  Charitativum,  held  at 
Thorn,  in  1645,  at  the  instance  of  King 
Vladislaus  IV.,  by  the  Protestants  and  the 
Catholics.  Bishop  Buettner  was  one  of 
the  Presidents  of  that  conference.*  Nor 
must  we  forget  that,  until  the  Peace  of 
Westphalia,  in  1648,  the  exiled  Brethren 
were  sustained  by  a  strong  hope  of  return- 
ing to  their  native  laud.  This  helped  to 
give  life  and  stability  to  their  Church. 

The  foregoing  narrative  is  based  upon  the 
sources  offered  by  Lukasczevich,  Fischer, 
Gindely,  and  Krasinski.  It  establishes,  I 
think,  my  second  point.  The  Brethren, 
when  driven  out  of  Bohemia  and  Moravia, 
did  not  scatter  and  give  up  their  church- 
organization,  but  renewed  it,  and,  together 

*  The  Gescliichte  der  Alien  Bruderkirche  con- 
tains a  mere  allusion  to  this  important  event,  and 
seems  to  misunderstand  the  connection  of  the 
Brethren  with  the  Colloquium. 


with  the  Brethren  of  the  old  Polish  Province, 
constituted  a  new  Unitas  Fratrum  which 
existed  for  twenty-nine  years  subsequent  to 
1627,  and  which  numbered  more  members, 
more  parishes,  and  more  ministers,  than  the 
American  and  British  Provinces  of  the 
Renewed  Unitas  Fratrum  combined  number 
at  the  present  day. 

It  is  an  interesting  fact  that  Cranz,  in 
his  History  of  the  Brethren  p.  85,  acknow- 
ledges the  existence  of  the  Unity  after  1627, 
saying :  "  In  Poland,  indeed,  the  exiles 
kept  to  the  congregations  of  the  Brethren." 
In  the  very  next  sentence,  however,  he 
falls  into  a  grievous  mistake,  asserting  that 
they  were  not  allowed  to  organize  in  any 
other  country.  Holmes,  too,  in  his  History 
I  p.  148,  although  he  passes  over  the  period 
we  have  been  considering  in  a  few  lines, 
fully  acknowledges  that  the  Unity  con- 
tinued to  exist 

In  order  to  still  further  substantiate  the 
position  here  taken,  I  will  adduce  two  ex- 
tracts, the  one  from  Gindely,  the  other  from 
Lukasczevich. 

The  former  says,  pp.  483  and  484 :  "As 
regards  the  Bohemian  Brethren,  they  fur- 
nished to  the  emigration  a  contingent  which, 
compared  with  others,  was  three  or  four 
times  larger.  This  tenacious  hold  which 
they  kept  of  the  usages  that  had  become 
dear  to  them  and  that  had  been  incorpo- 
rated, one  might  say,  with  their  very  flesh 
and  blood,  won  for  them  the  respect  of 
foreigners.  Nor  did  they  scatter,  like  the 
Lutherans,  into  all  the  corners  of  Germany. 
Nor  were  they  mostly  desti'oyed  in  the 
Thirty  Year's  War,  in  which  they  took  no 
part,  whereas  it  carried  off  many  of  their 
countrymen,  who  did  engage  in  it.  On  the 
contrary,  they  emigrated  to  Hungary,  where 
the  Protestant  Confession  was  free,  and  to 
Poland  and  Prussia,  whither  their  grand- 
fathers, constrained  by  a  like  fate,  had 
gone  in  1547.  The  number  of  Brethren's 
churches  in  these  countries  amounted  to 
about  one  hundred.    They  settled  in  col- 


i 


THE  VNITAS  FRATRTJM, 


onies,  in  various  places,  and  soon  developed 
a  new  centre  for  their  government,  so  tliat 
the  eyes  of  all,  however  far  away  tliey 
might  be,  might  be  directed  to  one  spot. 
For  the  first  time,  the  world  at  large  had 
a  picture  of  this  comj)act  mass  of  Brethren 
before  its  eyes." 

Again  he  says,  speaking  of  Comenius,  p. 
48^ :  "  Through  its  eloquent  representative, 
this  Church,  which  liad  thus  far  remained 
in  obscurity" — a  singular  assertion,  when 
we  think  of  the  j)rominent  position  the 
Brethren  had  occupied  theretofore  both  in 
Germany  and  Poland  —  "  nOw  became 
known  far  and  wide,  and  excited  universal 
sympathy." 

Lukasczevich  (quoted  by  Fischer)  says  p. 
191  &c.:  "  The  majority  of  the  exiles  came 
to  Great  Poland.  R:ipli:u>l  Lcszezyuski, 
Palatine  of  Belz  and  Ivord  of  Lissa,  and 
Andrew  Rej,  lord  of  Schocken,  hospitably 
received  on  their  domains  several  thousand 
of  their  Bohemian  and  Moravian  brethren 
after  a  common  faith.  The  rest  settled  in 
other  baronial  cities  of  Great  Poland,  where 
there  were  churches  of  their  confession. 
The  royal  cities  were  closed  to  them, 
through  the  influence  of  the  Catholic  clergy. 
With  these  exiles  more  than  one  hundred 
ministers  of  the  Bohemian  Brethren  arrived 
in  Great  Poland.  Tlius  thL^ro  arose  in  this 
eountry,in  addition  l<i  ilic  I'olish  Brethi-cn's 
Church,  a  Boliciuiiui-.Monivian  Church 
of  the  same  confession,  which  had  its  own 
government  and  constitution.  John  Cyrill 
was  their  presiding  Bishop.  At  Schocken 
and  Lissa  pujalic  services  were  held  in  the 
Bohemian  language." 

THE  UKITAS  FRATRUM  FROM  1656  TO  THE 
DEATH  OF  COMENIUS,  IN  1670. 

In  the  mysterious  providence  of  God  the 
Unitas  Fratrum  in  its  new  form  and  new 
seats  met  with  a  disaster  almo.st  as  terrible 
as  the  Anti-reformation  in  Bohemia  and 
Moravia,  and  that  was  the  beginning  of  its 


end.    It  would  lead  me  entirely  too  far  to 
give  the  details  of  this  part  of  its  history, 
although  they  are  very  interesting  and 
have  never  appeared  in  full  in  any  of  our 
Moravian  works.    Suffice  it  to  say  in  brief, 
that,  upon  the  death  of  Vladislaus  IV,  who 
was  a  humane  and  liberal  monarch,  his 
I  brother,  John  Casimir,  a  bigoted  Catholic 
and  a  worthless  man,  wa.s  elected  to  the 
\  throne  of  Poland  in  1 648.    It  was  a  time  of 
!  dire  confusion  and  distress  in  the  kingdom, 
i  A  terrible  revolt  of  the  Cossaks,  under 
Chmielnicki,  was  raging  ;  and,  in  1654,  the 
I  Czar  of  Russia  came  to  their  aid.    In  the 
!  mid.st  of  such  calamities  John  Casimir,  who 
"was  a  pretender  to  the  throne  of  Sweden," 
says  Krasinski,  "with  that  species  of  claim 
!  which  the  descendants  of  James  II,  had  to 
'  the  crown  of  Great  Britain,"  mortally  of- 
fended Charles  X,  when  he  received  the 
Swedish  crown  from  Queen  Christina  upon 
her  retiring  to  Rome  in  1654,  by  protesting, 
through  the  Polish   ambassador,  against 
such  a  transfer.    The  result  was  a  declara- 
tion of  war,  on  the  part  of  Sweden,  in  the 
following  year  (1655).    A  Swedish  army 
of  17,000  men  immediately  invailed  Great 
Poland.     Casimir  was   very  unpopular. 
Many  of  his  nobles  and  people  openly  es- 
poused the  cau.se  of  Sweden.    This  was  the 
!  case  among  his  Protestant  subjects  in  par- 
I  ticular,  and,  it  seems  undeniable,  among 
j  the  Brethren  especially.    The  Swedish  in- 
vaders tic  atcd  the  Catholics  in  a  barbarous 
nuinm  r,  alllioiigh  the  accusations  of  some 
Polisii  wiitcis  that  this  was  owing  to  the 
siiii-,a'sti()iis  of  the  Protestants  are  false. 
Charles  X  himself  appeared  in  the  country. 
I  Casimir  fled,  and  the  greater  part  of  Poland 
fell  into  the  hands  of  Charles,  who  re- 
;  turned  home,  but  left  an  army  behind. 
:  Thereupon  many  of  the   Polish  nobles, 
i  among  whom  Charles  had  become  even 
j  more  unpopular  than  Casimir,  roused  them- 
'  selves  from  their  lethargy,  and  began  to 
raise  troops,  on  their  own  responsibility, 
I  with  which  to  drive  out  the  Swedes.  About 


AND  ITS  HIDDEN  SEED. 


11 


that  time,  Lissa  had  a  Swedish  garrison  of 
several  hundred  men.  Accordingly  a  body 
of  the  newly  levied  Polish  troops,  under 
Opalenski,  approached  the  town,  on  the 
27th  of  April,  1656,  and  demanded  its  sur- 
render. Lissa  had  grown  to  be  a  little 
city  of  ten  thousand  inhabitants,  a  majority 
of  whom  were  members  of  the  Brethren's 
Church.  It  is  said  that  Bishop  Conienius, 
who  evidently  still  hoped  for  good  from 
Sweden,  in  spite  of  his  bitter  disappoint- 
ment in  connection  with  the  peace  of  West- 
phalia, persuaded  the  inhabitants  and  the 
garrison  to  defend  the  town  to  the  last. 
Hence  the  Poles  were  refused  admittance, 
and  began  an  attack,  but  were  defeated  and 
had  to  retire.  On  the  following  day,  April 
28th,  at  2  o'clock  in  the  afternoon,  intelli- 
gence was  brought  that  another  large  body  of 
Polish  infantry  was  approaching  the  town. 
One  account  adds,  that  the  new  owner  of 
the  place,  another  Count  Lecinski,a  Roman 
Catholic,  sent  in  a  letter  ordering  the  gates 
to  be  opened.  In  any  case,  a  terrible  and 
most  unaccountable  panic  seized  the  in- 
habitants. They  threw  away  their  arms 
and  fled  with  their  families.  By  six  o'clock 
in  the  evening  the  town  was^deserted.  The 
Polish  troops  took  possession  of  it,  allowed 
the  peasants  of  neighboring  villages  to 
plunder  it,  and  then  laid  it  in  ashes.  Thus 
fell  the  new  and  prosperous  centre  of  the 
Unitas  Fratrum,  and  every  parish  felt  the 
shock.  About  the  same  time  Czarnecki,  a 
Polish  General,  marched  into  Great  Poland 
with  an  army  of  Wallachians,  who,  in 
spite  of  his  exeilions,  raged  as  fiercely 
against  the  Protestants,  as  the  Swedes  had 
raged  against  the  Catholics.  The  Protes- 
tants fled  in  every  direction  ;  among  them 
many  Brethren,  bishops,  ministers,  nobles, 
and  common  people.  A  number  of  the 
ministers,  and  not  a  few  of  the  members, 
were  killed  by  the  Wallachians.  Several 
of  the  former  suffered  martyrdom  in  ex- 
cruciating forms  at  other  hands.  For  near- 
ly two  years,  no  public  services  were  held 


in  Poland,  according  to  the  ritual  of  the 
Brethren,  or  by  any  of  their  clergy. 

From  this  year,  therefore,  the  year  1656, 
and  not  the  year  1627,  dates  the  actual 
decline  of  the  Church.  But,  even  now,  it 
was  by  no  means  extinct. 

For,  in  the  first  place,  the  parishes  in 
Hungary,  Prussia,  and  Silesia  remained  ; 
and,  in  the  second,  while  many  of  its  fugitive 
members,  who  fled  to  more  distant  countries, 
were  thereafter  lost  to  history,  the  majority 
of  them  found  a  refuge  in  the  Silesian  par- 
ishes, especially  at  Carolath,  on  the  estates 
of  Baron  Schoneich,  their  fellow-member, 
and  in  other  places  of  that  Province,  such 
as  Ursk,  the  domain  of  Baron  Kauniz, 
and  at  Militsch,  whence,  with  few  excep- 
tions, they  returned  to  Poland.  In  1657, 
the  nobles  reappeared;  in  1658  some  of  the 
ministers;  and,  in  1660,  after  the  peace  of 
Olive  had  been  concluded  between  Sweden 
and  Poland,  nearly  all  the  rest.  The 
church  at  Lissa  was  rebuilt,  and  consecrated 
on  the  18th  of  September,  1658;  the  col- 
lege, too,  was  rebuilt  and  opened  on  the 
19th  of  February,  1663. 

Of  the  three  bishops  who  were  living  at 
the  time  of  the  destruction  of  Lissa,  Gertich 
died  in  Silesia  ;  Comenius  went  to  Holland, 
and  settled  at  Amsterdam  ;  but  Buettner 
came  back  to  Poland  in  1664.  He  resided, 
first,  at  Schocken,  and  then  at  Lissa ;  cor- 
responded regularly  with  Comenius ;  held 
Synods  again ;  and  superintended  the 
Church  in  every  other  respect.  But  it  no 
longer  flourished.  Lissa,  although  rebuilt, 
was  not  the  influential  centre  which  it  used 
to  be.  The  Church  in  general,  moreover, 
was  greatly  impoverished,  so  that  large 
amounts  of  money  were  raised  for  its  benefit, 
especially  in  England,  where  Hartman,  in 
1657,  collected  .£5,900 ;  many  of  its  mem- 
bers had  died  of  the  plague,  or  been  killed 
in  the  war ;  others  fell  away  to  the  Catholic 
Church,  and  the  number  of  such  perverts 
continually  increased ;  it  lost  its  prestige ; 
and  its  influence  waned  more  and  more. 


12 


TBE  r NIT  AS  FE  irRl'M. 


Hence  it  was  In  this  period,  from  1656  to 
1700,  that  the  union,  formed  between  tlie 
Brethren  and  the  Reformed  of  Cujavia  in 
1627,  began  to  change  its  character.  The 
former  now  leaned  upon  the  latter  in  all 
important  matters;  and  the  controlling 
element  became  the  Reformed. 

Nevertheless,  while  such  a  decline  was 
unquestionably  going  on,  the  Geschichte  der 
Alten  Bruderkirche  is  grievously  in  error 
when  it  says,  p.  376 :  "  The  Bretliren's* 
Unity  now  existed  only  in  siniilc  fugitives, 
and  in  the  few  menihers  of  the  Rcfoi  nied 
churches  of  Great  Poland,  who  had  lorni- 
erly  been  members  of  the  Brethren's  ( 'h  u  n-h, 
and  who  maintained  its  memory  in  their 
hearts,  or  in  outward  church  grades." 

The  account  which  I  have  given,  on  the 
authority  of  Lukasczevich  and  Fischer,  of 
the  restoration  of  the  Church  in  Poland, 
after  the  war  with  Sweden,  is  a  sufficient 
refutation  of  this  view  of  the  case.  Several 
thousand  Bi-ethren  returned  to  Poland,  and 
reorganized  their  former  churches.  We 
find,  moreover,  that  the  parishes  in  Hun- 
gary, Prussia,  and  Silesia,  clung  to  their 
independence  with  a  tenacity  which,  as  is 
well  known,  forms  a  prominent  trait  in  the 
Bohemian  character.  They  were  absorbed 
by  other  churches  in  the  same  slow  way  as 
in  Poland,  and  only  because  this  country 
offered  less  and  less  of  an  ecclesiastical 
centre. 

Nothing,  however,  proves,  more  conclu- 
sively, the  continued  existence  of  the  lireth- 
ren's  Unity  in  the  period  under  considera- 
tion, than  the  jealous  care  with  which  the 
episcopal  government  was  maintained. 

It  is  generally  supposed  that  bishoj)s 
were  consecrated,  at  this  time,  merely  in 
order  that  the  succession  might  not  die  out ; 
as  also  that  Comenius  was  the  first  to  urge 
their  appointment,  and  the  chief  agent  in 
carrying  it  through.  Both  these  suppositions 
are  erroneous.  As  touching  the  latter,  it 
was  Bishop  Buettner  who,  in  a  letter  dated 
January  15,  1658,  inibrming  Comenius  of 


the  death  of  Bishop  Gertich,  first  of  all, 
proposed  that  a  successor  should  be  elected. 
He  says,  among  other  things  [Rieger's  B.  H. 
VI,  pi  739  cl'c: 

"  I  beseech  you  to  cortsider  the  propriety, 
yea  the  necessity,  of  electing  a  third  Senior, 
or  Bishop,  either  ft-om  among  the  Bohe- 
mians or  the  Poles,  in  order  that  our  regu- 
lations (unsere  Ordnung)  may  be  main- 
tained, and  in  order  that  that  which  has 
been  kept  up  in  our  Brethren's  Church  for 
two  centuries,  in  uninterrupted  succession, 
and  which  now  centres  in  us  two  alone,  may 
not,  after  our  death,  become  extinct." 

And  when  the  war  with  Sweden,  which 
prevented  an  immediate  election,  had  come 
to  an  end,  it  was  again  Buettner  who  re- 
sumed the  negotiations,  and  pressed  the 
matter  very  earnestly. 

The  incorrectness  of  the  other  supposition 
is  shown  by  the  fact  that  two  new  bishops 
were  elected  by  a  Synod  of  the  Brethren 
held  at  Mielecin,  in  Poland  :  the  one,  Peter 
Jablonsky,  Comenius'  son-in-law,  for  the 
Bohemian-Moravian  branch,  in  xpem  contra 
sprm,  as  the  phrase  ran  ;  the  other,  Nich- 
olas Gertich,  for  the  Polish.  They  were 
consecrated  by^ishop  Buettner  on  the  5th 
of  November,  1662,  and  both  labored, 
after  their  consecration,  as  they  had  done 
before,  within  the  communion  of  the  Unitas 
Fratrum,  although  Gertich  was,  at  the 
same  time,  the  chaplain  of  the  Duke 
of  Liegnitz.  Moreover,  in  the  document 
which  Comenius  sent  to  the  Synod  giving 
his  consent  to  their  consecration,  he  ex- 
pressly acknowledges  the  existence  of 
(diurches  of  the  Brethren  in  Poland  and 
other  countries.  He  says,  Ripija'a  B.  //., 
VI,  p.  744:  "It  does  not  become  me  and 
the  Brethren  of  my  people  (the  Bohemians) 
to  envy  you  in  Poland,  because  the  Father 
of  spirits  chastises  yon  in  a  milder  way 
than  us.  On  the  contrary,  we  must  bear 
witness  to  the  fellowship  of  joy  which  ex- 
ists between  us,  that  you  (/.  c-,  the  ministers 
assembled  at  the  Synod)  are  permitted  to 


AND  rrS  HIDDEN  SEED. 


IS 


remaiu  in  your  churches  in  the  fatherland, 
and  to  set  them  an  example  both  in  doc- 
trine and  lite."  Again,  when  speaking  of 
j  the  proposed  election  and  consecration,  he 
says:  that  both  must  be  undertaken,  "in 
order  that,  through  the  erection  of  new- 
pillars  for  the  ministry,  those  of  your 
churches  which  still  remaiu,"  namely,  in 
Poland,  "and  those  of  ours  which  are 
scattered,"  namely,  in  Hungary,  Prussia, 
and  Silesia,  "  may  be  properly  cared  for." 
And  yet,  in  spite  of  the  document  contain- 
ing such  staten.ents,  the  GfS'hir/ite  ihi 
A/fen  Biuilerkinhe  says,  p.  421  :  "The  old 
episcopate  of  the  Brethren's  Unity  de- 
scended from  Coinenius  to  his  grandson, 
Jablonsky,  (that  is,  Daniel  Ernst  ),  in  the 
form  of  a  Superintendent's  office  in  the  Re- ; 
formed  Church,  set  over  the  few  Reformed 
parishes  which  remained  in  Great  Poland. 
From  the  scantily  gathered  particulars  of 
our  narrative  it  becomes  clear,  that  this 
episcopate,  for  the  two  generations  that  in- 
tervened between  Comenius  and  David 
Nitschmann,  was  preserved  in  Poland 
among  the  Reformed,  and  not  in  the  Polish 
branch  of  the  Unitas  Fratrum,  and,  further, 
that  the  trace  and  the  memory  of  the  an- 
cient  system  of  the  Brethren  showed  them-  ■ 
selves  in  ecclesiastical  forms,  such  as  the 
holding  of  Synods  and  the  order  of  bishops, 
rather  then  in  the  spirit  and  acts  of  the  men  , 
who  were  invested  with  the  episcopacy."  ] 
That  this  is  ah  utter  misconception  of  the  j 
true  state  of  the  case,  needs  no  further  ar- 
gument. 

THE  USITAS  FRATRUM  FROM  THE  DE.\TH 
OF  COMENIUS,  IN  1670,  TO  THE  BEGIX- 
NIXG  OF  THE  EIGHTEENTH 
fENTURV.,^ 

Bishop  Comenius  died,  at  Amsterdam, 
on  the  20th  of  November,  1670.  Did  the 
TTnity  of  the  Brethren  come  to  an  end  at 
that  time?  C)r  did  it  continue  to  exist; 
even  now  ''. 

The   Geschir.hte  der  Alien  Bruderkirche  \ 


says,  p.  413:  "The  death  of  Comenius 
may  be  considered  as  the  close  of  the  his- 
tory proper  of  the  old  Brethren's  Unity, 
yea  even  of  its  last  remnants.  Between 
Comenius  and  Christian  David,  or  Zinzen- 
dorf,  there  lies  more  than  half  a  century, 
which  can  show  no  Brethren's  congrega- 
tion like  that  at  Lissa,  and  no  bearer  of 
their  ecclesiastical  system  like  Comenius, 
but  only  isolated  reminiscences  of  the 
foi-mer  Unity:  in  the  Polish  branch  efforts 
to  keep  up  its  ecclesiastical  forms,  in  the 
Bohemian-Moravian,  signs  of  spiritual 
life — both  divine  preparations  for  the  re- 
newal of  the  Unitas  Fratrum."  This 
authority,  therefore,  maintains  that  even 
the  remnant  of  the  Church  disappeared 
and  that  only  reminiscenses  of  it  remained. 

Gindely,  p.  536,  asserts,  substantially,  the 
same  thing,  saying :  "The  death  of  Comenius 
wa.s  not  only  the  death  of  the  head  of  the 
Brethren's  Unity,  but  also  the  end  of  the 
Unity  itself.  Thenceforth  its  single  mem- 
bers were  lost  among  the  Lutherans,  the 
Calviuists,  and  the  Anglicans,  according  to 
the  place  of  abode  which  they  had  chosen." 

Even  Daniel  Ernst  Jablonsky,  in  his 
letter  of  October  31,  1729,  to  Count  Zin- 
zendorf,  seems  to  agree  with  these  views, 
for  he  writes,  Kolhlmj)'  Bischofthum  d.  B.  C, 
p.  24  and  25,  "At  the  time  of  my  father's 
death" — Bishop  Peter  Jablonsky,  who  died 
in  the  same  year  with  Comenius, — "  the 
number  of  the  exiled  Brethren  had  de- 
creased very  much,  and  the  remnant  of 
them  in  Poland  had  united  with  the  Poles, 
the  hope  of  a  return  to  their  native  country 
being  entirely  dissipated." 

I  am  again  forced  to  dissent  from  these 
views,  in  so  tar  as  an  absolute  extinction  of 
the  Church  is  concerned.  Jablousky's 
language  is  rather  vague.  He  probably 
means  to  enforce  the  fact,  which  is  un- 
doubted, that  the  Unita.s  Fratrum  was 
dying  out.  He  cannot  mean  that  it  was 
extinct.  He  must  have  known  that  there 
were  a  number  of  its  churches  in  existence 


THE  UNIT  AS  FRATBUM, 


in  1670.  Gindely's  view  I  deem  worth- 
less, because  it  is  given  at  the  end  of  his 
article  on  Comenius,  and  relates  to  a  period 
of  history  which  he  has  evidently  not  ex- 
amined with  any  degree  of  attention. 
Having  finished  his  subject,  he  jumps  at  a 
conclusion  which  invests  his  hero  with  a 
new  and  mournful  interest.  While  the 
Geschichte  der  Altcn  Bruderkirchc  merely 
keeps  u})  the  argument  which  it  began  with 
the  supposed  extinction  of  the  Brethren's 
Unity  in  1627. 

It  is  true,  the  few  sources  which  we  have 
say  very  little  with  regard  to  this  period. 
Nevertheless  we  can  gather  enough  to  show 
that  the  Unitas  Fratrum  still  existed  and 
was  represented  by  a  number  of  inde- 
pendent churches  in  Poland,  and,  therefore, 
it  is  reasonable  to  add,  by  others  in  Hun- 
gary, Prussia,  and  Silesia  also. 

In  the  first  place,  Fischer  says  that  the 
church  at  Lissa  was  kept  up  until  the  very 
end  of  the  seventeenth  century,  John  To- 
bian  being  its  last  minister  (Fischer  II  p. 
160).  He  says,  again,  that  an  independent 
organization,  which  seems  to  have  consisted 
of  a  net-work  of  parishes  numbering  sev- 
eral thousand  members,  was  maintained  at 
Kurcewo  until  the  end  of  the  century,  and  j 
was  then  relinquished  in  consequence  of  a 
general  apostacy  to  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  (/'Wte/- II,  p.  384.)  He  speaks, 
too,  of  a  number  of  noble  families  which 
were  connected  with  the  Brethren's  Unity 
as  late  as  1686,  and  which  consequently  | 
must  have  had  parishes  of  this  name  on  j 
their  estates.  And,  finally,  he  often  makes 
other  allusions  to  the  existence  of  such 
churches  in  this  period. 

In  the  second  place  the  view  I  am  urg- 
ing is  established  still  moi'e  fully  by  the 
continued  election  and  consecration  of 
Bishops,  who  were  not  Reformed  Superin- 
tendents, but  stood  at  the  head  of  the 
Unitas  Fratrum,  for  whose  welfare  they 
faithfully  labored,  in  spite  of  its  decline. 

Nicholas  (Jertich  died  in  1671.  Conse- 


quently the  only  Bishop  who  remained  wae 
John  Buettner.  He  convened  a  Synod  at 
Lissa,  which  body  elected  Adam  Samuel 
Hartman.  He  was  consecrated  by  Buett- 
ner on  28th  of  October,  1673.  Hartman, 
a  son  of  a  minister  of  the  Brethren,  himself 
one  of  their  ministers,  who  had  labored  all 
his  life  in  their  schools  and  churches,  was 
a  remarkable  and  very  learned  man,  whose 
interesting  biography,  previous  to  his  con- 
secration, I  nuist  pass  by.  After  he  had 
been  made  a  bishop,  he  had  his  seat  at  Lissa, 
but  undertook  long  journeys  in  the  interests 
of  the  Church.  The  most  important  of 
them  was  that  to  England  in  1683.  He 
brought  with  him  a  commission  from  the 
Synod  of  Lissa,  dated  February  16,  1683, 
appealing  for  aid.  This  appeal  was  sus- 
tained by  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury 
and  the  Bishop  of  London,  and  resulted  in 
a  perpetual  fund  for  the  education  at  Oxford 
of  candidates  /or  the  ministri/  connected  with 
the  Brethren's  Church.  Does  this  savor  of 
an  absolute  extinction  of  that  church? 
Hartman  himself,  moreover,  received,  with 
many  flattering  ceremonies,  the  honorary 
degree  of  Doctor  of  Divinity  from  the 
University  of  Oxford,  and  in  the  diploma 
he  was  entitled  a  bishop  of  the  Unitas  Fra- 
trum ( Riajer  VI  p.  738  and  Fischer  II  p. 
346).  What  is  still  more  interesting,  how- 
ever, he  consulted  with  the  dignitaries  of 
the  Anglican  Establishment  about  the  pro- 
priety of  consecrating  a  bishop  of  the 
Brethren  for  England,  who 'was  to  look 
after  those  of  them  that  had  settled  in  that 
country.  Daniel  Ernst  Jablonsky  in  his 
letter  to  Archbishop  AVake  gives  an  account 
of  these  negotiations.  (  Acta  Fratrum  in 
Anylia  p.  114.)  For  some  unknown  reason 
they  were  eventually  dropped.  Does  not 
all  this  presuppose  that  the  Unity  was  still 
in  existence? 

At  an  earlier  period,  after  the  death  of 
Bishop  Buettner,  February  2,  1675,  John 
Zugehor,  a  minister  of  the  Brethren,  and 
laboring  in  their  parishes,  had  been  elected 


AND  ITS  HIDDEN  SEED. 


15 


to  the  episcopacy,  and  consecrated  by 
Bishop  Hartman  on  the  13th  of  August, 
1676.  Five  years  later  Hartman  died  at 
Rotterdam,  while  on  his  way  to  visit  Eng- 
land a  third  time,  May  29,  1691.  Mean- 
while Bishop  Zugehor  had  taken  up  his 
abode  at  Zyciilin,  and  for  twenty-two  years 
superintended  the  remnant  of  the  Breth- 
ren's Churches,  the  ftrst  fifteen  ^vears  in 
conjunction  with  Hartman,  and  the  last 
six  in  conjunction  with  Joachim  Jiilich. 
Jiilich,  like  his  predecessors,  a  minister  of 
the  Brethren,  whose  Synod  elected  him  to 
the  episcopacy  in  1692,  having  been  conse- 
crated by  Zugehor  on  the  26th  of  June, 
stood  at  the  head  of  their  churches  for 
eleven  years,  and  died  on  tlie  14th  of  No- 
vember, 1703. 

In  as  much,  therefore,  as  all  these  men 
were  real  bishops  of  the  Brethren,  and 
governed  what  remained  of  them  in  the 
same  way  in  which  the  bishops  in  other 
days  had  governed,  and  did  this  down  to 
the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century,  we 
are  forced  to  conclude  that  the  Unitas 
Fratrum  still  existed,  however  weak  it  may 
have  been. 

THE  PERIOD  FROM  1700  TO  1722. 

The  history  of  the  Hidden  Seed  proper 
opens  with  the  new  century.  After  1700, 
we  hear  nothing  of  an  independent  Breth- 
ren's Church.  Xor  do  we  know  anything 
of  the  bishops  whom  Daniel  Ernst  Ja- 
blonsky — elected  by  a  Synod  at  Lissa  in 
1699, — consecrated,  namely,  Opitz,  David 
and  Paul  Cassius,  and  Christian  Sitkovius. 
They  were,  without  doubt,  what  has  been 
incorrectly  asserted  of  their  predecessors. 
Superintendents  of  the  few  remaining  Re- 
formed churches  which  constituted  the  le- 
gitimate outgrowth  of  the  union  between 
the  Brethren  and  the  Reformed  effected  in 
1627. 

Such  churches  still  exist,  and,  as  is  well 
known,  the  Renewed  Brethren's  Church, 
in  recent  times,  recommitted  to  them  that 


I  episcopal  succession  which  it  had  obtained 
through  them  in  1735.  On  the  16th  of 
June,  1844,  their  Superintendent,  Dr. 
Siedler,  was  consecrated  a  bishop  at  Herrn- 
hut,  by  Bishop  Curie  and  others,  and 
when  he  went  over  to  the  high  church 
wing  of  the  Lutheran  Establishment,  his 

,  successor.  Dr.  Gobel,  was  consecrated  a 
bishop,  at  Gnadenberg,  by  Bishop  Nitsch- 
mann  and  others. 

Returning  to  the  days  of  Bishop  Joachim 
Jiilich,  we  find  that,  from  the  close  of  his 
episcopate,  in  1703,  to  the  founding  of 
Herrnhut,  in  1722,  extends  an  interval  of 
only  nineteen  years.  Therefore  the  last 
position  which  I  have  taken  is  likewise  es- 
tablished. The  period  in  which  there  were 
no  independent  churches  whatever  of  the 
Ancient  Brethren  dwindles  down  to  less 
than  a  quarter  of  a  century. 

It  is,  moreover,  a  very  important  fact, 
that  there  was  at  least  something  of  a  con- 
nection between  the  last  independent  Breth- 
ren's churches  and  those  Moravian  refugees 
through  whom  the  Unitas  Fratrum  was  re- 
newed at  Herrnhut.    We  know  that  the 

[  zeal  which  IMartin  Schneider,  in  Moravia, 
displayed,  in  holding  private  services  among 

I  the  descendants  of  the  Brethren,  was  in- 
flamed by  the  secret  visits  which  some  of 
their  ministers  from  Skalic,  in  Hungary, 
paid  to  Zauchteuthal.  And,  in  general, 
we  may  say  that  simultaneously  with  the 
final  extinction  of  the  independent  churches 
began  a  new  life  from  God  among  the 
Hidden  Seed  in  Bohemia  and  Moravia. 
It  was  only  four  years  after  Bishop  Jiilich 
had  passed  away,  that  the  Neissers  were 
gathered  around  the  death-bed  of  George 
Jaeschke,  at  Sehlen,  and  heard  his  pro- 
phetical anticipations  of  a  renewal  of  the 
Church. 

In  conclusion,  it  must  be  clear,  that  we 
i  have  far  more  reason  for  calling  the  Re- 
newed Brethren's  Church  an  organic  contin- 
uation of  the  Ancient  Church  than  our 
authorized  Histories  set  forth.  Not  a  quar- 


16 


THE  UNTTAS  FRATRVM,  AND  ITS  HIDDEN  SEED. 


ter  of  a  century  after  the  last  parishes  of  j  the  Spirit  of  the  living  God,  gathered  up 
the  latter  had  disappeared  in  Poland,  and  [  the  threads  of  a  development  that  had  been 
while  there  were,  perhaps,  a  few  churches  i  going  on  for  nearly  two  centuries  and  a 
still  lingering  in  Hungary,  a  hidden  rem-  half,  and  presented  to  the  world  the  won- 
nant  of  the  descendants  of  the  Brethren  derful  spectacle  of  a  dying  church  renew- 
came  forth  from  Moravia,  and,  enabled  by  '  ing  its  youth  like  the  eagle's. 


NOTE. 

[While  this  paper  was  going  through  the  press,  I  was  informed  by  my  friend,  Mr.  William 
G.  Malin,  of  Philadelphia,  that  his  library  contains  a  copy,  in  the  original  Polish,  of  Lukasze- 
vich's,  or  Lukasznvicz's,  HiMorij  of  the  Brethren  in  Poland.  In  this  form  the  work  uafortunately 
remains  for  ine  a  sealed  book.  There  exists  a  German  translation  of  it,  but  it  is  very  rare. 
Mr.  E.  StoifTi  r,  III'  New  York,  a  well-known  publisher  and  importer,  tried  his  best  to  secure  it 
for  me,  but  was  unsuccessful.  In  the  copy  belonging  to  Mr.  Malin,  however,  there  was 
found,  ill  inanuscript,  a  (iennjin  version  of  the  title  and  contents,  together  with  a  brief  extract 
from  the  Preface.  From  this  extract  it  appears,  that  the  author,  Joseph  Lukaszewicz,  was 
the  librarian  of  Count  Ras/.ynski,  at  Posen,  and  that  the  sources  for  his  history  were  the  fol- 
lowing: The  Archives  of  the  Hohemian  Brethren  at  Lissa;  the  Archives  of  several  Polish  noble- 
men ;  as  also  the  Archives  of  a  number  of  towns,  churches,  and  villages  of  former  domains  in 
Great  Poland.  This  information  is  very  important,  and  shows  that  one  of  the  chief  sources 
from  which  I  liave  drawn  my  argument  in  the  above  paper  is  a  work  whose  authority  is  based 
upon  original  doeuineuts,  and  which  must,  therefore,  be  reliable.  From  the  table  of  contents 
I  see,  that  Lukas/ewicz  pives  an  alpliabetical  list  of  the  churches  of  the  Brethren  in  Great 
Poland,  numbering  seventy -nine ;  and  also  a  list  of  all  the  Polish  Bishops.] 


DATE  DUE 


U  J30/ 

GAVLORD 

Lja\flord   

PAMPHLET  BINDER 

=  Syrocuie,  N.  Y. 
:  :   Slockton,  Colif. 


